Abstract

Contact repulsion of growing axons is an essential mechanism for spinal nerve patterning. In birds and mammals the embryonic somites generate a linear series of impenetrable barriers, forcing axon growth cones to traverse one half of each somite as they extend towards their body targets. This study shows that protein disulphide isomerase provides a key component of these barriers, mediating contact repulsion at the cell surface in chick half-somites. Repulsion is reduced both in vivo and in vitro by a range of methods that inhibit enzyme activity. The activity is critical in initiating a nitric oxide/S-nitrosylation-dependent signal transduction pathway that regulates the growth cone cytoskeleton. Rat forebrain grey matter extracts contain a similar activity, and the enzyme is expressed at the surface of cultured human astrocytic cells and rat cortical astrocytes. We suggest this system is co-opted in the brain to counteract and regulate aberrant nerve terminal growth.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Geoffrey MW Cook

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Catia Sousa

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Julia Schaeffer

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Katherine Wiles

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Prem Jareonsettasin

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Asanish Kalyanasundaram

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Eleanor Walder

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Catharina Casper

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Serena Patel

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Pei Wei Chua

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Gioia Riboni-Verri

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Mansoor Raza

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Nol Swaddiwudhipong

    School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andrew Hui

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ameer Abdullah

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Saj Wajed

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Roger J Keynes

    Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    rjk10@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1557-7684

Funding

Medical Research Council

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Roger J Keynes

Wellcome

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Roger J Keynes

Spinal Research

  • Julia Schaeffer

Trinity College, University of Cambridge

  • Roger J Keynes

University of Cambridge

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Catia Sousa
  • Julia Schaeffer
  • Katherine Wiles
  • Prem Jareonsettasin
  • Asanish Kalyanasundaram
  • Eleanor Walder
  • Catharina Casper
  • Serena Patel
  • Pei Wei Chua
  • Gioia Riboni-Verri
  • Mansoor Raza
  • Nol Swaddiwudhipong
  • Andrew Hui
  • Ameer Abdullah
  • Saj Wajed
  • Roger J Keynes

Rosetrees Trust

  • Geoffrey MW Cook
  • Julia Schaeffer
  • Roger J Keynes

The Anatomical Society

  • Eleanor Walder

Amgen Foundation Summer Scholarship

  • Gioia Riboni-Verri

The authors declare that the funders provided research equipment and laboratory consumables, as well as salary support for Julia Schaeffer, Eleanor Walder and Gioia Riboni-Verri.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Chick embryos were used for this work, and all experiments were carried out at earlier developmental stages than those that require ethical approval.

Copyright

© 2020, Cook et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,312
    views
  • 189
    downloads
  • 4
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Geoffrey MW Cook
  2. Catia Sousa
  3. Julia Schaeffer
  4. Katherine Wiles
  5. Prem Jareonsettasin
  6. Asanish Kalyanasundaram
  7. Eleanor Walder
  8. Catharina Casper
  9. Serena Patel
  10. Pei Wei Chua
  11. Gioia Riboni-Verri
  12. Mansoor Raza
  13. Nol Swaddiwudhipong
  14. Andrew Hui
  15. Ameer Abdullah
  16. Saj Wajed
  17. Roger J Keynes
(2020)
Regulation of nerve growth and patterning by cell surface protein disulphide isomerase
eLife 9:e54612.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54612

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54612

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Laurel A Rohde, Arianne Bercowsky-Rama ... Andrew C Oates
    Research Article

    Rhythmic and sequential segmentation of the growing vertebrate body relies on the segmentation clock, a multi-cellular oscillating genetic network. The clock is visible as tissue-level kinematic waves of gene expression that travel through the presomitic mesoderm (PSM) and arrest at the position of each forming segment. Here, we test how this hallmark wave pattern is driven by culturing single maturing PSM cells. We compare their cell-autonomous oscillatory and arrest dynamics to those we observe in the embryo at cellular resolution, finding similarity in the relative slowing of oscillations and arrest in concert with differentiation. This shows that cell-extrinsic signals are not required by the cells to instruct the developmental program underlying the wave pattern. We show that a cell-autonomous timing activity initiates during cell exit from the tailbud, then runs down in the anterior-ward cell flow in the PSM, thereby using elapsed time to provide positional information to the clock. Exogenous FGF lengthens the duration of the cell-intrinsic timer, indicating extrinsic factors in the embryo may regulate the segmentation clock via the timer. In sum, our work suggests that a noisy cell-autonomous, intrinsic timer drives the slowing and arrest of oscillations underlying the wave pattern, while extrinsic factors in the embryo tune this timer’s duration and precision. This is a new insight into the balance of cell-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms driving tissue patterning in development.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Jayanarayanan Sadanandan, Sithara Thomas ... Peeyush Kumar T
    Research Article

    The blood-brain barrier (BBB) controls the movement of molecules into and out of the central nervous system (CNS). Since a functional BBB forms by mouse embryonic day E15.5, we reasoned that gene cohorts expressed in CNS endothelial cells (EC) at E13.5 contribute to BBB formation. In contrast, adult gene signatures reflect BBB maintenance mechanisms. Supporting this hypothesis, transcriptomic analysis revealed distinct cohorts of EC genes involved in BBB formation and maintenance. Here, we demonstrate that epigenetic regulator’s histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) and polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) control EC gene expression for BBB development and prevent Wnt/β-catenin (Wnt) target genes from being expressed in adult CNS ECs. Low Wnt activity during development modifies BBB genes epigenetically for the formation of functional BBB. As a Class-I HDAC inhibitor induces adult CNS ECs to regain Wnt activity and BBB genetic signatures that support BBB formation, our results inform strategies to promote BBB repair.